Strategy, CE, Tech, Climate Change, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship

Thursday, January 24, 2008

To rewind just a bit, my former colleagues at NCRI created a form of scenario planning called Future Mapping that improved upon scenario processes pioneered in the business world by Royal Dutch Shell. After I had departed for Silicon Valley, they continued a series of public workshops on The Future of Information Commerce. The results are available here via Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. An overview of what I call (for trademark reasons) the Scenario Mapping process is provided in this presentation.

Working in teams, workshop participants decide which of 150 plausible Events provided by the facilitators Must or Must Not happen if the team's assigned outcome or Endstate is to be realized. Events that are Common to a majority of scenarios are called Common Events. These are worth added attention because, generally speaking, more industry stakeholders have an interest in these Events. In the 1997 workshop, 12 events appeared in a majority of scenarios. Here they are with my comments.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Earlier I noted Paddy Briggs' critique of Royal Dutch Shell's use of scenario planning. Writing in the Scotsman, George Kereven reports an interview with James Smith, the chief executive of Shell UK that focused on Shell's thinking regarding what I call the Wicked Problem of Global Climate Destruction. According to Kereven, there are two paths the world could take that Shall calls "Scramble" and "Blueprints".

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

As noted, my former colleagues at NCRI ran a public scenario planning workshop on Mapping The Future of Information Commerce in 1997. The results are summarized here. The time horizon for the Endstates was 2002.

Near the outset of a Scenario Mapping (nee Future Mapping) workshop, teams are asked to vote a database of plausible Events either Highly Likely (>=80%+ probable), Highly Unlikely (<=20% probable), or Uncertain. Using the voting results, the facilitators then construct and present a Conventional Wisdom scenario. The Conventional Wisdom scenario reflects the thinking of the "room" at the outset. To paraphrase former Royal Dutch Shell scenario planner Arie P. de Geus (Planning as Learning, HBR, 1988): If you want to change people's thinking, you first have to show them how they think.

Here are the main themes of the Conventional Wisdom scenario from the 1997 workshop as summarized in the published report. I have added my commentary after each bullet.

High bandwidth will be widely available, affordable, and
in demand by large segments of the population fairly soon (2-3
years).

Actually, it took what some might think a long time in the US for substantial broadband penetration and even now, the US lags some of the developed world both in penetration and typical broadband speeds.

Monday, January 21, 2008

As noted, my former colleagues at NCRI ran a public scenario planning workshop on Mapping The Future of Information Commerce in 1997. The results are summarized here. The time horizon for the Endstates was 2002. As summarized in the report, the key learnings that emerged from this scenario planning workshop included the following bullets. I've added commentary below each.

Major advances in Internet technology and function are virtually
inevitable.

Sure. Greater bandwidth enables new applications.

These improvements are likely to erode the passive entertainment
consumption paradigm (and accompanying advertising-based business
models) that characterize traditional consumer "TV culture"
in the U.S.

Yes and no. Workshop participants didn't anticipate the rise of advertising based business models that have become pervasive on the Web. However, User Generated Content, multiplayer games, and similar applications / activities / contexts are a move away from passive viewing. And TV viewership seems to be declining.

Royal Dutch Shell has long been seen as one of the early business scenario planning pioneers. Scenario Mapping(TM) [nee Future Mapping] form of scenario plannning was created by Dave Mason, Jim Herman, and others at NCRI with awareness of Shell's methods.Paddy Briggs, who retired from Shell after 37 years, isn't so upbeat on Shell's use of scenarios. Briggs' main point is that Shell uses scenarios for public relations and that their scenarios have little actual impact on corporate decision-making and shareholder value. After discussing several examples of how scenarios made no difference to Shell's decision-making regarding China and Russia, Briggs concludes:

The invitation to [Shell CEO] Jeroen van der Veer to speak to world leaders at Davos will no doubt give him a warm glow that he, and Shell, are legitimate movers in the refined air of the “World Economic Forum”. And there will no doubt be approval of the new scenarios as I am sure that they will be as intellectually solid and stimulating as ever. But if pressed (as he should be) to give one example of how these scenarios are actually to be used in Shell strategic decision-making he will struggle. Because there is no evidence at all that Scenario planning has made a hapeworth of difference to Shell’s actions or performance over the years. Like so much of the public face of Shell the rhetoric is a long way from the reality.

A constant theme in my strategy work and writings is that scenarios only have value if they are well-integrated into decision-making and subsequent action. It appears that Briggs would agree.

Friday, January 11, 2008

In 1990-1991, the Association of American Publishers co-sponsored a series of public workshops on Mapping the Future of Publishing that I conducted with my then colleagues at NCRI. Later on, I morphed these public workshops into Mapping the Future of Information Commerce. After I departed NCRI at the end of 1995 my former colleagues ran additional installments of the Information Commerce workshop in 1997. Thanks to the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive, the report is available on the net here.

I thought that it might be a very interesting and possibly useful exercise to return to those days of yesteryear and see what knowledgeable industry participants thought about the future of the information industry and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight compare their thinking to what actually happened and where we are now.

The Future of Information Commerce workshops used a highly interactive scenario planning process that in these pages is called Scenario Mapping. In addition to the discussion in the report itself, an overview of the Scenario Mapping methodology can be found in this presentation.

In brief, a Scenario Mapping workshop combines "simulated hindsight" with a highly prepared meeting to leverage the collective intelligence of workshop participants. By simulated hindsight I mean that we assume the future is now and ask how the world got to be this way: what were the key milestones, actors, motives, drivers, etc. that led to this world rather than some other.

By highly prepared meeting, I mean that the facilitators in conjunction with workshop sponsors prepare several coherent descriptions of future outcomes or Endstates and a set of hypothetical Events. Each Event has a headline, date, and brief description.

In this series of blogicles, I'll provide snapshots of the Endstates used in the 1997 Information Commerce workshop, summaries of the deliberations, and report on how participants voted on the Endstates and Events. I'll also focus on the "compares and contrasts" with the present.